Torn Between X Pro 1 and Full Frame

When taken from the same spot both shots would have had exactly the same DOF but the aps-c shot might have "appeared" to have a shallower DOF because the perspective was different with larger out of focus areas.

When the FF body was moved closer then yes as you've pointed out the DOF would have been shallower.

--
http://www.alkchan.com

this is very confusing and your statements are reasonable but the outcome is not correct

basically the bigger the sensor the less DOF for a given aperture at the same focal length equivalent

Why ?

read here
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
and here
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

extract:

"As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame with that subject. This means that one has to use progressively smaller aperture sizes in order to maintain the same depth of field on larger sensors"

jacketpotato said:

harold1968 said:

jacketpotato said:

for me DOf is king, and APS-C can never do as much as I want

Click to expand...

DXO mark ISO for the 5Dii is 1850. No APS-C camera comes close

Click to expand...

I have got shallow dof from 1/1.8" sensor at approx 35mm f2 by being really close to the subject (4 inches away).

As I understand (I may be totally wrong) the distance to subject from lens end is significant in shalow dof. From an online test I remember 50mm f1.4 on apsc had shallower dof than 50mm f1.4 on ff when the cameras were the same distance from the subject, because 50mm f1.4 became a 75mm on apsc (closer to the subject). But when the ff was moved closer so that the 50mm on it mimicked 75mm, its dof was shallower.

I think this means (I am happy to be corrected), if a 35mm f1.4 was put on a 5D and on X-P1, both cameras same distance from subject, X-P1 would have shallower dof as the fov on X-P1 would be closer to the subject at approx 53mm.

Click to expand...

--
http://photon-priority.blogspot.com
http://www.haroldmiller.me

Regarding the first section of your response:

I don't really think the issue is over hyped, it's a very valid discussion point for people who want shallow DOF.

I agree, its impossible to recreate the look of fast lenses (on large formats) on smaller formats, however it does work the other way round - you can recreate the look of fast lenses on small formats with a camera that has a larger sensor.

For this reason, performing equivalence DOF tests on a FF camera is useful if you're considering switching to a system with a smaller sensor.

I take your other points on board though.

--
http://www.alkchan.com

I travel with a 7D with two lens and the X100 as the backup, by the end of the day, my back really feels the weight. I leave the X100 at the hotel to reduce the weight for that reason.

Why take the 7D (I know you are thinking about the 5D)? X100 simply can not compare when it comes to AF accuracy and FPS speed. There are times you have only a few seconds to setup, and split second difference captures different nuances in the facial expression. X100 takes up to 2 seconds to startup, the AF hunts, and then another few seconds to write to card. Additionally, the center focus is so big, you sometime have to focus more than once to get the right subject. With a DSLR, none of that are really issues.

Unfortunately, unless Fuji drastically changed their AF mechanism to like Nikon V1 to include Phase Detection AF in addition to Contract Detection AF, the X-Pro 1 will likely to be the same as X100.

My X100 usually comes out during dinner (I'm too tired at the end of the day to haul my DSLR to take casual photos), walking at night (DSLR says tourist and rob me), during border crossing (I dare you to try to pull out a DSLR in near the in-between zone), or in temples where silence and discretion is implied.

I think you really need both, neither alone is a complete solution.

LiChung Liu said:

I think you really need both, neither alone is a complete solution.

Click to expand...

I have taken to using both the 5DII and X 100 after using the X 100 almost exclusively for several months.

For macro shots the 5D II with the 100mm macro is a joy to use. While auto focus is not perfect it is lightning fast and in circumstances where the camera insists on "seeing" something in the background the manual focus is perfect.

I have a x 1 pro with the macro lens on order so I will have to see how it cmpares. I am worried that the manual focus might suck like the X 100 which in my opinion is useless.

A few shots with both cameras in January:

http://www.mikesjournal.com/January%202012/January%202012.htm

Cheers

The DOF is being made into a bigger issue than it really is. Yes there is a difference, and yes at f/1.4 on a 35 or 55 FF you will get smaller DOF. But if you're already happy with the DOF you get on your current cam, then you'll have no regrets with the x-pro 1 or any other APS-C. I wouldn't be too concerned with that facet of your decision, just consider it when making the choice.

Price..they seem comparable. Draw. Besides, we all know that if we REALLy want one over the other, and the price is close, we'll find a way to buy it, won't we?

Lens choice is a real issue. But, the message that Fuji sent is that they're committed, and they've explicitly laid out a roadmap of lenses. They look fairly comprehensive on paper, and certainly would satisfy your demands based on your stated usage.

Focus, performance, etc - there's no way to know. These forums are rife with confident predictions and preemptive decisions on whether to get one or not, all based on (sometimes very well thought out) conjecture. None of us know how it will perform. So the risk is there. You have time, just wait till it comes out and then decide, no?

Based on what we DO know, there are pros/cons for both. Size, easy, the fuji wins. Trust me, even with an APS-C DSLR, you're gonna not want to have to lug it around all day. The DSLR is also more bulgy and awkard when carrying it. It's one of the reasons those who love rangefinders love them. The fuji is not "small" in that p&s sense of the word, but my guess is you'd love carrying it around more than a DSLR. Also, as someone mentioned, dynamic range is prob gonna be a lot better. DR was never BAD on the 5D's, but there is a very (to me, and many many people) discernible difference in DR and what that allows you to do, with the newest (SONY) sensors. If this sensor is anything like those, you'll be very very happy.

It's very likely you won't, generally, get the speed and responsiveness with the fuji that you will with the 5D (or any DSLR). You are trading size and shape for performance. Doesn't mean that's not something worth trading, depending upon what you're after.

I don't think the FF v APS-C would be that big of a turning issue for you if you had both systems in your grubby hands this very second, an spent a month with them both. I think you'd decide based on how good it felt to use each (size, shape, weight, look, feel, and of course image quality and response). Either one is (likely) going to take terrific photos.

The End

Powerdoc said:

The camera in itself is not smaller than the 5dmk2, but the lenses are smaller. A typical bag for landscape pics, will be from 2 to 3 times less heavy.

Click to expand...

The XP1 is much smaller than a 5D2. It's 3cm shorter heightwise, more than 1cm shorter lengthwise, and just over half as thick. That makes a huge difference in a bag, let alone a hand.

Like I said, it all comes down to pixel-level sharpness for me. If we get some RAW files and the look like they came from an SD1 (i.e. roughly equivalent to the 5D2 when upsized), my decision will probably be made. If they just look "more detailed than your average APS-C camera," I'll be a lot less enthused. I like to make stupidly gigantic prints from my 5D2, and if I have to give that up just to get a smaller camera, I probably won't do it.

LiChung Liu said:

[…] I think you really need both, neither alone is a complete solution.

Click to expand...

Damn, I was hoping to finance the x-Pro1 selling a bit of DSLR gear.

I had the 5D Mk2 and X100 and the Canon was, by far, the suprior camera. If the X-Pro 1 has the same focusing issues I will not consider buying it. Keep an eye on Canon 5D Mk2 prices as they may start to come down significantly. This model has been on the market for a while and Canon may be getting ready to introduce the 5D Mk3 this year. I sold my Fuji X-100 and will use the money to buy a Sony NEX 7.

I am struggling between this new XP1 and the Leica M9.

Price will not be a serious problem because i've been saving for a while, and want to do this one time, correctly.

At the end of the day, I think I'll end up with an M9. The XP1 blows it out of the water in terms of senor, having AF, functions, any sort of movie mode, a more versatile VF, and on and on. But not being full frame and not being able to get that kind of subject separation is the dealbreaker for me. My 7D is wonderful, but being able to use a longer FL lens without sacrificing Field of View to get shallow Depth of field is the main objective for me.

That said, I applaud the execution of the XP1, and if i were not such a shallow DoF junkie this wouldn't even be a question.

nathaniel m said:

I am struggling between this new XP1 and the Leica M9.

Price will not be a serious problem because i've been saving for a while, and want to do this one time, correctly.

At the end of the day, I think I'll end up with an M9. The XP1 blows it out of the water in terms of senor, having AF, functions, any sort of movie mode, a more versatile VF, and on and on. But not being full frame and not being able to get that kind of subject separation is the dealbreaker for me. My 7D is wonderful, but being able to use a longer FL lens without sacrificing Field of View to get shallow Depth of field is the main objective for me.

That said, I applaud the execution of the XP1, and if i were not such a shallow DoF junkie this wouldn't even be a question.

Click to expand...

If you've got enough money for an M9 and don't want the XP1 because of the DoF situation, the most obvious choice in my book is to buy an XP1 and a 5D2. You'd get the best of both worlds and still have $3000 to buy glass!

Even if the money is not an issue, I would get an XPro 1. I beleive this system has lot of room to grow. Fijifilm has the will power and resource to grow. Leica reminds me of Kodak.

nathaniel m said:

I am struggling between this new XP1 and the Leica M9.

Click to expand...

I have the same dilemma but if the Fuji can deliver sharp results at F2 to F4 where I shoot the majority of my work then I will have less need a full frame camera. The 7D, although it is also APS-C, is an amazing machine capable locking onto and tracking almost anything and I will keep it for this very reason. However, the Canon and it's support system of large lenses and filters is awkward to take out for a night on the town.

as a 5d2 and x100 user i can tell you flat out for traveling the 5d2 is a royal pain, not to mention you look a bit suspicious wit that brick around your neck.
Let jut keep 5d2 where it shines best - event photography and eng.

The x100 is good for a daily charge on a single battery for travelling, with one spare battery it is bulletproof.

This is not true - I have already explained why earlier in this thread

And the links posted by harold1968 also confirm this.

For similar compositions, a full frame camera will always give you shallower DOF compared to an APS-C camera with the same lens.

--
http://www.alkchan.com

Own an X100 and a canon 40d. Have access to a 5Dii at work. If you need operational speed, the 5dii is a proven performer.

--
Canon 40D. Canon 50mm f1.4, canon 135mm 2.8/soft focus, Canon 70-
200 f4L, Canon 24-105L.

Keep in mind that there will be an M-mount adapter in the near future, and a lens like a 90mm f/2.0 Summicron can be found used. It will give you the field of coverage of a 135mm lens and even with a APS-C sensor should give you very shallow depth of field. Of course Leica is not the only source. I have a f/2.0 85mm and an f/1.2 50mm, both from Canon. They were originally screw mount, but they have M-mount adapters.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/

one thing that i liked about the x100 is the "small" files. i already have a FF DSLR that i don't think can be replaced by a mirrorless camera. maybe one day but after the x100 fiasco i sure as hell wouldn't be betting a camera that hasn't even been released yet .

ed rader

--
my galleries:

http://erader.zenfolio.com/

I currently have an X100 and a 5D2.

Over the last year I have used the X100 for > 90% of my pictures.

Now I really like the look of the XP1, and if I had to choose just one system I would probably choose it over the 5D2 + X100 set.

I think it really comes down to whether you need the flexibility of a DSLR system. The 5D2 (in Europe at least) has been the clear value leader in the FF space, being significantly cheaper than the A850 or A900 and the Nikon D700. And the middle-ground choice between resolution and high-ISO performance. Take lenses into account and the value swings much further to Canon again. (European/UK prices).

Macro? => DSLR
Studio? => DSLR (slightly)
Sports? => DSLR
Wildlife? => DSLR

Street? => M9/XP1
Environmental Portraits/Candids? => M9/XP1
Camera you carry everywhere? => M9/XP1

For me the X100 is a perfect complement to the big DSLR. But the XP1 is a replacement for both.

(X100 + 5D2) v XP1

When I finally hold the XP1 I might be tempted to sell up all my other digital cameras, but probably I will stick with my beloved X100 and very useful 5D2.

--
Fuji X100 Fanboy #1
X100 blog -> http://peri.org.uk/wp/?tag=blog

Thanks for all the great responses. It's definitely a tough call. I'm leaning more towards keeping my X100 for everyday photos and for when I want to be discreet, and then getting the 5d mark ii for portrait work. I think a canon 5d mark ii with a 50mm lens with the x100 shouldn't be too bad for traveling but still not ideal. I think the full frame DOF is still important so we'll have to see.

Oh the day when I can get a small, full frame camera that's not $9000